Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those driving on to the main roundabout at Rotherham see a big sign saying "1,200 fewer crimes than last year"? I do not know whether the police or the council put it up, but that is cheerful news. There are a lot more police uniforms on the street and there is a dynamic, younger leadership in the town. As the leader in  The Times said well today, such news contrasts with the depiction of Britain as a broken, crime-ridden society where nobody dare walk the streets. The Leader of the Opposition is doing grave damage to our nation.

Jacqui Smith: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Police forces and their partners throughout the country are doing sterling work in helping to bring down crime. That work needs to be recognised, to build confidence in our communities. He is right on another point. Those who say such things about Britain do a disservice to this country and to the efforts of the many police officers, community organisations and others who are working hard to bring down crime even further.

Jacqui Smith: The sentencing guidelines make it clear, as has the new Lord Chief Justice Sir Igor Judge, that knife crime is a serious crime that in many cases should result in custody. Of course, someone is now three times more likely to end up in custody for possession of a knife and more likely to receive a longer custodial sentence. We are taking tougher action, both on sentences and on making sure that people are caught for possession or use of knives in the first place.

Jacqui Smith: We certainly talk frequently, and we talk to ministerial colleagues. The BTP are working hard—particularly, as my hon. Friend says, in London, alongside the Metropolitan police—to make sure that there is proper coverage and security in our transport system. My hon. Friend is right that we always need to keep the issue under review. We need to make sure that police forces talk to each other about how they can best keep the travelling public safe.

David Ruffley: Home Office figures show that in the past three years, the proportion of officer time spent on patrol has fallen from the already low 19.1 per cent. to 17.1 per cent. Does the Secretary of State think that that has in any way contributed to rising knife crime?

Vernon Coaker: The Government have made a number of such assessments, most recently the assessment of the impact of the impact of the Licensing Act 2003 on levels of crime and disorder, which shows that the overall volume of incidents involving crime and disorder remains unchanged, while there were signs that crimes involving serious violence may have reduced.

Adam Holloway: I wonder what difference these measures make if so-called low-level antisocial behaviour, including children drinking, is often now under the police radar.

Vernon Coaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, if one looks at what police forces across the country are doing, one cannot say that tackling under-age drinking is below the police radar. In fact, many police forces are working with local authorities and others and taking serious action to combat the serious issue of children drinking in public. Indeed, he will have seen the youth alcohol action plan, which details further measures that the Government intend to take with regard to this issue.

James Brokenshire: Increasingly, drunk and disorderly offences are being dealt with by fixed penalty tickets, with the pilot to extend penalty notices to children aged between 10 and 15 having been completed, according to the Government, in July 2006. But despite saying that this scheme would not be adopted until the pilot had been evaluated, three of the police forces involved are still issuing penalty tickets to children because, in the words of one of them,
	"instruction from the Home Office to cease has not been received".
	Can the Minister confirm whether this pilot has finished, and whether the 6,000 tickets given to children in the past two years have been issued validly?

Vernon Coaker: We certainly have looked at a range of measures that we should adopt with respect to perpetrators, in order to try to remove them from the scene of their domestic violence and protect the victim. Of course, the most important thing is to try to ensure that victims come forward, because we know that domestic violence is a crime that takes place behind closed doors. One of the most significant problems is giving victims the confidence to come forward and report it to the police, and to believe that they will be sympathetically dealt with. However, the suggestion that my hon. Friend makes is another one that we can always look at.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that answer. I was dispirited to see from leaks in the paper about the forthcoming Green Paper that the Government were once again trying to put police force mergers back on the agenda. We battled hard in the south-west to see them off last year and we were ably led by our chief constable, Tim Brain. I hope that the Home Secretary will take the opportunity today to say that the Government have no intention, whether directly or through funding mechanisms, to force such proposals through. She might also take the opportunity to congratulate our chief constable in Gloucestershire on the recent award of his OBE.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the work done by people such as Inspector Ian Coxhead in Tamworth in leading neighbourhood teams. Inspector Coxhead regularly meets members of the public at the police and community trust partnerships and he takes accountability very seriously, because it meets real people's real concerns on a day-to-day basis. Is that model of police accountability not the one that we should adopt? It takes these issues upwards, in contrast to the downward model, which has failed for so many years.

Jacqui Smith: No, I do not believe that it is clear that one elected representative who is distant from their local community is best way to achieve the visible and responsive policing that we want.

Anne Snelgrove: Will my right hon. Friend reject the policy of making police into politicians? Some Opposition Members love calling unnecessary expensive elections, but does she agree that public accountability is much better served by seeing police on the beat, with good funding and leadership from the Government, not by gimmicks?

Jacqui Smith: I do agree with my hon. Friend, although I look forward later to welcoming back friends who have been absent over the past month or so. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Answerability and accountability start at the neighbourhood; they start with the investment that the Government have put in and the reform that police forces have introduced to deliver neighbourhood policing teams in every community that have the ability, through local meetings and talking directly to members of the public, to allow local people's priorities to be fed into what happens locally. That is supported by the proposals that we will put forward in the Green Paper to enable directly elected voices on police authorities to make sure that local priorities can also be reflected at a strategic level in each police force.

Liam Byrne: The Government fully recognise the proud tradition of loyal service that the Gurkhas have given over the past 200 years. Any Gurkha who has completed at least four years' service in the British Army and was discharged on or after 1 July 1997 is able to apply for permanent residence within two years of their discharge. Gurkhas discharged before 1 July 1997 are considered on a case-by-case basis.

David Taylor: Despite the disgraceful and dishonest millionaire-funded Tory leaflets going out in marginal seats stating that violent crime has doubled under Labour, the British crime survey suggests that it has come down by a third since 1997 and that knives were used in an unchanged 8 per cent. of cases. Will the Minister tell us what he plans to do with teenagers in the soulless wastes of this city who carry knives out of fear and desperation or because they believe it generates respect, when all it produces is a tragic reduction in the average age of homicide victims?

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend is right to point to the British crime survey figures, which show a reduction in violent crime of more than a third. Notwithstanding that fact, what we are doing in respect of violent crime in London and elsewhere is to ensure that we have a tough enforcement approach in which we support the police and that we have prevention and diversion schemes alongside it. We know that if we are going to solve this problem, it is not just a matter of increasing the sentences available to the authorities and tough enforcement of the law, but of working with communities. As my hon. Friend points out, it is also about trying to change the culture among some young people who seem to find knife carrying acceptable.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Lady has made an important point. As she will know, we have conducted a number of under-age sales campaigns involving action against retailers. She will have noted that over the years the proportion of small retailers who fail the test has fallen from about 50 to 15 per cent. However, we are aware that we need to take further action against retailers, and I want all local authorities to use the powers that are available to them.
	No doubt the hon. Lady will support the change in the law to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred recently when we announced the youth alcohol action plan, which includes a new offence of persistent possession of alcohol in public by young people.

Jacqui Smith: And that is precisely what the hon. Gentleman's constituents are getting with neighbourhood policing teams in every area, the Flanagan review recommendations that this Government are putting into operation, and more mobile data machines so that the police can stay out on the beat. However, I believe that they also want the investment that this Government have put into providing the knife arches and search wands and other tools for the police to use to collect knives and catch those carrying them. They also want the investment we have put into sending a very strong message to young people that carrying a knife does not make them safer, but makes them more likely to have that knife used against them or use it against somebody else, with all the tragic consequences that brings. There is not one simple answer to this, which is why we have a wide-ranging strategy to tackle knife crime including, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, ensuring that there are police officers and police community support officers visible on our streets, and I hope he will support the development of neighbourhood policing.

Jacqui Smith: No, it is not. May I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman to his role? I hope that he remains in that role, even when others return to this House. What I made clear over the weekend is that I believe, as I said in my first answer to topical questions, it is important that we develop knife referral schemes that will enable young people caught in possession of knives to face up to the consequences of their actions. Such schemes should include their attendance at weapons awareness workshops, where graphic and detailed information on what happens when someone is stabbed and what the wider consequences are for them and their families, as well as for the victim, the victim's family and the community, are brought home to them. Such schemes could include visits to hospitals, or doctors visiting them so that they can talk to health care professionals, hear about the graphic impact of knife wounds and better understand what happens when somebody is stabbed. We are not—I have never said that we are—proposing to bring young people into wards to see patients.

Jacqui Smith: May I reiterate my earlier point that we are not proposing to bring young people into wards to meet patients? However, it would be a good idea to bring young people into contact with health professionals, perhaps through visits to hospitals, so that they understand what knives can do to people. My right hon. Friend is right to say that another element of the knife referral project should include young people meeting offenders to find out exactly what it means to be imprisoned, and the possible consequences for the rest of their lives.
	I agree with him that I hope the knife crime programme will achieve a clear view about the methods that will make the most difference to reducing knife crime, and that we can work together on that. That is what I have always sought to do, and it is a shame that some people are looking for opposition for the sake of—

Tony McNulty: I am very grateful for the chance to clarify my comments. If at any stage they were interpreted the wrong way to suggest anything other than the greatest respect for Eliza Manningham-Buller and her 33 years of public service, that was not my intention. The simple fact is that the Baroness Manningham-Buller's experience is entirely in the intelligence dimension and not in investigation and prosecution, which is where the 42 days comes in. That is a simple matter of fact and I was not in any way casting aspersions on the huge service that she has given for this country.

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on House of Lords Reform. I am also today publishing a White Paper on the subject.
	In my statement to the House on 19 July last year, I said that I would continue to lead cross-party talks on reform of the Lords. Those talks have included Front-Bench representatives of the main parties from both Houses, as well as representatives of the Cross-Bench peers and the bishops. The talks have made good progress and I am most grateful to all those who have served on the group. I pay tribute to them for their constructive contributions and readiness to consider alternative proposals. Our discussions have been much informed by the work of others, including the Public Administration Committee, informal cross-party groups, the Cunningham report and above all the report of the royal commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord Wakeham.
	The basis for our talks was the outcome of the votes in the House of Commons in March 2007. The House voted then for a wholly elected second Chamber, and for a mainly elected second Chamber and rejected all other alternatives by a large margin. Their lordships took a different view and voted for a fully appointed second Chamber and rejected all other alternatives by a large margin. However, as I said in my statement on 19 July last year, reflecting the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 3 July last, work taking forward House of Lords reform had to be based on the will of the House of Commons, which is the primary Chamber in our legislature. The proposals we make today are consistent with the 2005 manifesto commitments of the three main political parties.
	The White Paper sets out how a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber might be created within a bicameral legislature in which the House of Commons retains primacy. The White Paper reflects the considerable consensus reached in the cross-party talks. Inevitably, we did not reach agreement on all issues. In some instances, those taking part have asked that the White Paper record their difference of view, which of course it does.
	As I indicated to the House in my statement on 19 July last, our intention is that the product of the cross-party talks would be the basis of a
	"package that we would put to the electorate as a manifesto commitment at the next general election and which hopefully the other main parties would include in their manifestos".—[ Official Report, 19 July 2007; Vol. 463, c. 450.]
	It has, therefore, never been the intention to legislate in this Parliament—as I said last year. The White Paper represents a significant step on the road to reform, and is intended to generate further debate and consideration rather than being a blueprint for final reform.
	The White Paper sets out how Members could be elected to a reformed second Chamber from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. It was a key recommendation of Lord Wakeham's royal commission, and one that has since enjoyed strong consensus within the cross-party group, that Members should serve a single, non-renewable term of three electoral cycles—that is, of between 12 and 15 years. The proposal reflects the proposals in the February 2007 White Paper. Under this system, elections would be held at the same time as those for Members of this House, so as to minimise disruption to the business of Parliament.
	The current House of Lords has more than 700 members. The Government intend that the reformed second Chamber should be significantly smaller, not more than between 400 and 450 members, maybe fewer, and that costs should be similar or reduced. We envisage all members of a reformed second Chamber making a full contribution to its work and we would welcome views on its size. Single, non-renewable terms would help to provide a membership for the second Chamber that continued to be distinct from that of this House and could hence bring an added dimension to the work of Parliament. It is proposed that this be reinforced by the use of large constituencies for elections to the second Chamber.
	I referred earlier to the primacy of this House. Analysis of other countries' arrangements, including that set out in chapter 5 of last year's White Paper, and consideration of our own history shows that primacy does not depend on the fact that this House is elected while the Lords is not, rather that primacy is rooted in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and the conventions that govern relations between the two Houses. However, with the introduction of elected Members in the second Chamber, we have to ensure that the mandate of this House, and of the Government it sustains, continues to hold sway. The membership of a reformed second Chamber should be such that it could not challenge that mandate. That is why we saw considerable merit in staggered elections, with a third of Members returned at each election. In that way, the electoral basis of the reformed second Chamber could never, as a whole, be more recent than that of this House.
	The cross-party group considered at some length possible voting systems. The White Paper presents detailed modelling on the possible—I underline possible—effects of each of four electoral systems for elections to a second Chamber. The systems are first past the post, the alternative vote, the single transferable vote and open or semi-open list systems. The Government would welcome views on the choice of system.
	The group considered the powers of a reformed second Chamber. We took the view that it would be wrong to presuppose conflict between this House and the other reformed House. The working relationship between the two Houses currently functions well, and we could see no reason why it should not continue to do so. Creative tension between the Houses can lead to better government, not to an undermining of the primacy of this House. If conflict arose in the future, it would, as now, be for both Houses to devise a way through that conflict. In advance of that, we identified no persuasive case for reducing the powers of a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber.
	Given the Commons votes last March, the White Paper does not take a view between the options, which were voted on in favour, of either a 100 per cent. or an 80 per cent. elected second Chamber, but the White Paper includes detail on a possible 20 per cent. appointed element, should the latter option be chosen. There would then be a statutory appointments commission and published criteria for appointments. Any appointed members would serve for three electoral cycles in the same way as elected Members.
	If the second Chamber became fully elected, there could be no seats appointed or reserved, including for Church of England bishops. But in recognition of the wide and important role played by the Lords Spiritual in the life of the nation and the special constitutional position of the Church, we propose that their representation should continue in a mainly elected House. In that instance, their numbers would not contribute to the 20 per cent. appointed element.
	The White Paper includes proposals on eligibility and on disqualification. Because of the long non-renewable terms for which they would serve, we were attracted to the system discussed in the White Paper of recall ballots for elected members of the second Chamber, with analogous arrangements for any appointed members, but those would apply only after the first of the three parliamentary terms that members would serve. Again, the Government would welcome views on that.
	We also propose that members of a reformed second Chamber should receive salaries, with the Senior Salaries Review Body asked to advise.
	The transition to a reformed second Chamber raises a number of important issues, not least about the future arrangements for existing Members of the Lords. It is those Members who, collectively, enable the Chamber effectively to fulfil its key roles of scrutinising legislation, conducting investigations and holding the Government to account. The Government and, I know, the whole House greatly value the work of the Lords and the contributions of individual Members to it. However, it was made clear in 1999 that the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote would be removed, as part of the next phase of Lords reform. The Government therefore propose that, following legislation and during the transition to a reformed second Chamber, there should be no further by-elections to fill vacancies for hereditary peers.
	The February 2007 White Paper included a proposal from me that a reformed House should be 50 per cent. elected and 50 per cent. appointed. One of the many merits that I saw in that proposal was that it would have enabled existing life peers to remain for life if they had wished to do so. But that 50:50 proposal was comprehensively rejected by both Houses. The votes in this House for a wholly or 80 per cent. elected House mean that the context for the transition to a reformed second Chamber has changed. There may not be an appointed element in a reformed second Chamber. If there is, it may comprise 90 or many fewer Members.
	A discussion is therefore now required to determine how far the rights of life peers to sit and vote during any transition to a reformed second Chamber should continue. The White Paper sets out three options for managing this transition: first, for all existing life peers to leave in tranches, allied to the three electoral cycles; secondly, for all to leave on the third cycle; and thirdly, to remain as now for life. Again, the Government would welcome views on those options.
	The cross-party group faithfully and assiduously followed the mandate set for it by the Commons in March 2007. We are now keen for there to be a wide-ranging and thorough debate on our proposals. But I hope that all members of the cross-party group share my view that to have got this far on such an important but highly complex issue is a considerable achievement.  [ Interruption. ] I think so, and I am very grateful for the approbation of the House in that respect. As I said in my statement on 19 July, our intention now is to continue to develop the consensus around a comprehensive package for reform of the House of Lords.

Nick Herbert: I thank the Justice Secretary for early sight of his statement and the final White Paper. I commend him on the way in which he has handled discussions in the cross-party group for many months and attempted to steer a course of reform.
	We welcome the White Paper and recognise it as a step forward. As the Justice Secretary said, it is a Government document. Many of the proposals reflect areas of consensus in the cross-party talks, but there are areas of disagreement. Will he accept that the question of the electoral system for any reformed second Chamber is far from settled? We believe that that system should mirror that for this House: a first-past-the-post system based on recognisable constituencies of our historic cities and counties. We would strongly resist any move to introduce an electoral system based on proportional representation. Would not simultaneous elections to both Houses involving two different electoral systems be a recipe for confusion?
	At a time of increasing public disquiet about politicians' use of taxpayers' funds, the cost of the second Chamber is bound to be an issue. What plans does the Justice Secretary have to set out the pay, pensions and responsibilities of members of a reformed second Chamber, and the costs of reform as a whole?
	The Justice Secretary says that a reformed second Chamber should be significantly smaller than the existing House of Lords, but is not 400 members too large? We have argued for a second Chamber of between 250 and 300 members, which would be a similar size to the upper houses of France, Italy and Spain. The United States Senate has only 100 members for a population of 300 million people, albeit in a federal system.
	On the subject of a senate, the White Paper notes that the working group reached a "strong consensus" that a reformed second Chamber should be known as the "Senate", yet the Government's proposals do not use that name. Will the Justice Secretary tell us why the Government appear reticent to adopt a name that was agreed by the cross-party group?
	The issue of transition could be highly contentious. The White Paper suggests that life peers could remain members of a reformed second Chamber even after transition was complete. How could reform possibly be considered complete while life peers remained in a second Chamber, perhaps for decades? The White Paper also suggests that the remaining hereditary peers would go at the completion of transition. Does not the Justice Secretary accept that given that the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, gave an undertaking that the elected hereditary peers would remain until stage 2 of reform had taken place, it would be invidious and inequitable to remove those remaining hereditary peers sitting in the other place as long as the 400 life peers created under Labour continued to sit? While the largest number of Members of this House voted last year for a 100 per cent. elected second Chamber—I was one of them—is it not the case, in view of the contrary position taken by the Lords themselves, that retaining an appointed minority would provide the best hope of consensus?
	We welcome the special place that the Government intend to reserve for the Church of England bishops in a mainly elected, reformed second Chamber. However, does the Justice Secretary agree that retired justices of the supreme court, who would not be appointed to the second Chamber automatically, would make every bit as valuable a contribution to its work as the Lords Spiritual?
	Reform should not be supported unless it strengthens the authority of the second Chamber in holding Governments to account. However, a reformed second Chamber should not seek to compete with this House, which must continue to have primacy. Is it not the case that both Houses of Parliament need strengthening to hold the Executive to account? Does the Justice Secretary agree that the next reform of the Lords should be a democratic one and that we should be wary of any proposals that might cement the current arrangements, especially by allowing an entire second Chamber to be appointed by an unelected quango?
	The White Paper represents the next step after last year's votes in the House for a mainly or wholly elected second Chamber, but is it not clear that the change envisaged is a radical one? It is not so much the reform of the House of Lords as the creation of a new second Chamber. Reform of the Lords has been proposed and attempted for the past 100 years. Will the Secretary of State for Justice indicate when he thinks the proposals will be translated into a Bill? It is right that Members in this House should reflect on and debate the issues carefully. We Opposition Members will continue to seek consensus on a way forward.

Simon Hughes: First, may I thank the Secretary of State for the statement and for the work on the White Paper? I pay tribute to his commitment to making sure that we move forward together, as far as is possible. Through him, I thank his private office for its assistance, and his officials, who have been extremely helpful. Does he agree that the reality is that there is a coalition of the committed, who are determined that we shall see reform? The process started in 1911—I nearly said, "as you know, Mr. Speaker." I did not mean that; I mean, "as we all know." It would be nonsense if the process were not completed by 2011. The question that the House has to address is not whether, but when, we have a properly democratic second Chamber of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is the issue, and not anything else.
	The Secretary of State heard my colleagues and I make a commitment in the talks and on behalf of our party. We will repeat that commitment in our next election manifesto: it is to make sure that all our MPs vote at the earliest opportunity in the next Parliament for just this sort of reform package. However, if people are to be elected to the second Chamber—it will be called "the Senate", I think—in thirds, for one term only, there is no justified argument that those elected with a party affiliation should not proportionately reflect the public's votes for the parties at the election. That argument is not about this place; we can have that at another time. It is an argument about proper representation down the corridor.
	Will the Secretary of State accept that, like the life peers, the hereditaries have known throughout their service in the House of Lords—many have served it well—that the time would come when their service would end? The only logical position is that all the hereditary peers should go at the beginning of the democratic process and that the life peers should go, at the latest, at the end of the three elections, probably by thirds over the period. In the White Paper, the Government express the preference that we have discussed: that the elections for the second Chamber should take place on the same day as the general election. However, does the Secretary of State agree that there is a strong case for our needing a fixed-term Parliament for the House of Commons and for there to be, at half-time intervals, elections for the second Chamber as well as for the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and for any future devolved Administration in England?
	There has been a debate about the bishops. I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that many of us in the Church—not only the Anglican Church, but the Church generally—believe that the time has come for the Church of England not to be part of the establishment any more. The Church was not part of the establishment at the beginning and it was not intended to be so. Whether there are to be women bishops soon or not—I hope that there will be—the Church must, like anybody else, put its case for representation to the people. It is nonsense to protect one bit of the old House of Lords, but not any other.
	Lastly, does the Secretary of State agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert)? The proposals do not come instead of, but as well as, the reform and democratisation of the Commons. We need a stronger Parliament in this country if the British people are to think that their Governments, of whatever colour and composition, are to be held properly to account in future.

Gerald Kaufman: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his courtesy in sending me an advance copy of the White Paper and for his kind words about my work on the royal commission? Having read the White paper, I congratulate him on producing a masterpiece of imprecision, vacillation and obfuscation that cannot possibly lead to meaningful legislation—a consequence entirely to be desired.

Patrick Cormack: In echoing the wise and perceptive comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), may I ask the Lord High Chancellor to acknowledge that when the votes took place in this House last year a significant majority of Conservative Members voted against 80:20 and a larger number voted against 100 per cent.? On his side of the House, there was a significant majority against 80:20—

Jack Straw: There is experience of the electorate finding voting straightforward, including in the elections for the London assembly. I understand my hon. Friend's point, and it might be a further argument in favour of first past the post.

David Clelland: These proposals represent major constitutional change. If proposals for elected mayors, regional assemblies and devolved Government require referendums, should the people not be asked whether they want to abolish the House of Lords and create 200, 300 or 400 more paid politicians?

Evan Harris: Even the Government accept in the White Paper that there is no place for bishops in a 100 per cent. elected House, so in their view there is no fundamental constitutional principle in having bishops. Therefore, if the Government want bishops in an 80 per cent. House, why not rely on the appointments system rather than reserving a place for 16 or 26 male, mainly conservative people who have separate representation from anyone else?

Jack Straw: He says yes, but I have a slightly different view. I think that we cannot operate a party system without Whips, however difficult they may be from time to time—and that is an eternal verity. The whipping system in their lordships' House is already rather loose compared with the system in this House, and that may continue.

Patrick McFadden: The House discusses many important issues, and I disagree with the hon. Lady if she feels that it is not important that the House debates minimum wage enforcement and the other subjects the Employment Bill addresses. I am glad we have this opportunity to debate them today.
	A clear, quick and effective enforcement regime will ensure that individuals are properly compensated if their rights are infringed. The Bill toughens enforcement of employment law by introducing new penalties for employers who do not pay the minimum wage, and it provides additional powers enabling employment agency inspectors to deal with rogue agencies.
	The Bill will reform the mechanisms for dispute resolution by repealing the statutory workplace dispute resolution procedures and replacing them with a package of non-legislative measures to help employers and employees resolve disputes earlier.

Patrick McFadden: The Gibbons report said these reforms had been well intentioned but had had unintended consequences. That is precisely why we are repealing them and replacing them with non-statutory measures. We estimate that the changes contained in the Bill will produce annual benefits of some £177 million a year, and these measures are just a part of the wider simplification agenda, which is set to deliver benefits over and above that over the next three years.
	In addition, the Bill clarifies the position of cadet force adult volunteers in relation to the minimum wage and permits the payment of a broader range of expenses to voluntary workers without triggering entitlement to the minimum wage. It also amends trade union membership law to comply with the European Court of Human Rights judgement in ASLEF  v. UK.
	I shall now turn in more detail to the measures in the Bill, beginning with those on workplace dispute resolution. In March 2007, the Government published Michael Gibbons' independent "Better Dispute Resolution: a Review of Employment Dispute Resolution in Great Britain" and an associated Government consultation paper, "Resolving Disputes in the Workplace". While the current statutory dispute resolution system is based on well-founded principles, the review highlighted several drawbacks in the way the system is operating, such as the inflexibility and high administrative burden of the mandatory procedures affecting both employers and employees, and that the road to the tribunal is fixed too early, resulting in a significant proportion of cases reaching a tribunal hearing which could have been resolved beforehand between the parties. Access to tribunals is an important part of the dispute resolution system and an important recourse for employees who may be facing mistreatment at work, but it is also the case that if disputes can be resolved more informally or earlier, perhaps through conciliation, that is the benefit of all concerned.
	The Government response to the consultation on dispute resolution shows that the responses were broadly supportive of the conclusions of the review. Some 76 per cent. of respondents favoured repeal of the 2004 procedures and only 20 per cent. opposed it. Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the repeal of the procedures and of linked provisions on procedural unfairness, but the review also made it clear that repeal of the statutory procedures must be accompanied by a package of other measures to encourage good practice in the resolution of workplace disputes and to ensure that Government-funded services promote early resolution as effectively as possible. So, to accompany the repeal, ACAS is revising its statutory code on disciplinary and grievance procedures. The draft code, which is out for public consultation, is concise and principles-based, and it will be supported by fuller non-statutory guidance.

Patrick McFadden: I agree about the value of lay members to the tribunal process, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not unheard of for tribunal judges to sit alone in some limited jurisdiction cases. We are talking about the capacity not only for tribunal judges to sit alone, but for them to decide cases without a hearing, in limited circumstances that are set out in the clause to which I referred.
	The national minimum wage has been one of this Government's proudest achievements. It was opposed by many, including the Opposition, before it was established. I see that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is in his place, but his party did not turn up for the vote on Third Reading. Despite that, it has become an important and widely supported foundation of fair treatment in the labour market. Some 1 million workers continue to benefit from the assistance of the minimum wage.
	Last week, the House approved regulations increasing the hourly rate from £5.52 an hour to £5.73 from October of this year. Historically, low-paid groups have benefited more than most, including part-time workers and low-paid women. Since the introduction of the minimum wage, the lowest paid have seen their pay increase more quickly than the pay of many other workers.
	The vast majority of employers willingly comply with the legislation, but that is not always the case and there are exceptions. Most businesses want to obey the law and treat their staff fairly but there are those who are willing to break the law by denying their staff the minimum wage. That impacts on those workers who are underpaid, but also enables those dishonest employers who flout the law to undercut the vast majority of law-abiding businesses that comply. That is not only unfair, but uncompetitive, and through the measures in this Bill we are determined to take tougher action against it.
	We will crack down on the minority of rogue employers who fail to comply with the minimum wage. Between 2003 and 2006, we completed some 15,000 investigations and identified underpayments totalling £9.6 million. In the past year, the Government have helped to restore more than £3 million in arrears to more than 14,000 workers.

Jonathan Djanogly: I will not answer that question, which is a thesis point, in any depth, mainly because I never said what he claims I said. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) may have had a point when she said that perhaps the Government wanted to avoid a debate on abortion today because of the by-election on Thursday. We can only speculate.

John McDonnell: This is the first time that I have been accused of calling the shots on Government legislation.  [ Interruption. ] I know, although I will try to get through this speech without any further references to by-elections in Glasgow.
	My entry into this debate comes from my promotion last year of the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill, which not only was supported by the TUC unanimously at congress, but received the support of action required by the Labour party conference. My Bill resulted from our experience in my constituency with Gate Gourmet. A large number of my constituents, largely Asian women, who were working for Gate Gourmet, a company that received contracts outsourced from British Airways, went to work one morning and were herded into a shed. A manager then came forward and sacked them by megaphone for refusing to sign up to new terms of work that would undermine their conditions, cut their pay and even threaten their pension status.
	At that time, we were looking for new legislation that would provide protection to those workers. However, some hon. Members will also recall that other members of the Transport and General Workers Union at the airport spontaneously came out on strike in solidarity. The airport is like a mining village. People work in different sections of the airport and for different companies. Many worked for companies to which contracts had been outsourced by British Airways and had worked with each other in the past. Indeed, many were members of the same family working in different areas, so there was a natural feeling of spontaneous support for the workers, largely women, who had been sacked so brutally by Gate Gourmet.
	The workers therefore came out on strike. As a result, the TGWU was threatened with tens of millions of pounds—the figure quoted was about £42 million—in fines by the aviation industry, which threatened to break the union. Eventually, the workers had to go back to work. Although the union did its best, some individuals suffered severe detriment, in both wages and conditions. Indeed, some of them are still not even back at work, despite all the union's hard work and best endeavours.
	It was in that climate that I expected the Employment Bill to reflect the concerns of trade union members, as well as members of the community throughout, and to reflect the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill, which we sought to promote last year, because such incidents continue. Only last week we had a debate with the Minister present—I am grateful for his help in the discussions that we are having—because the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union had come forward about the Lyndale group. For three years, Lyndale had been planning to restructure, but without consultation with the trade unions. Lyndale went into administration, but within hours established itself as a new company trading in exactly the same way, laid off 700 workers, avoided its responsibilities for redundancy payments and, again, frogmarched some workers off its site.
	That is no way in which to treat workers in this day and age. The reason companies can treat workers so is that we have fewer trade union rights now than we had in 1906, after the Taff Vale judgment. We still do not have the right to strike embedded in law and we no longer have the right to solidarity action. As a result, the reality of work for many people is that they are exploited and feel unprotected, so I was hoping for a more ambitious Bill than this one.
	I would like to set out those areas in which some of us will seek to amend the Bill in Committee and on Report to improve the situation, so that people can be represented properly by their trade unions, and so that industrial harmony can break out. Respect for trade union rights has been fundamental for co-operation between workers and employers for two centuries now, and has produced an industrial climate that has been beneficial to both sides of the industry, as well as to the community overall. I would like to go through those elements of the Bill that I would like to be amended and which I hope will form the agenda for later debate. Other Members on our Benches have issues that they would like to raise for amendment, too.
	The first issue that I want to discuss is industrial action. There is currently no right to strike in law in this country, although we have the right to be protected for a limited period from employers' attempts to threaten actions on breach of contract. In their most recent legislation on the issue, the Government improved the situation by extending the period of protection from eight to 12 weeks, but the right to strike is still not embedded in law, as it is across Europe. Furthermore, no protection is provided after 12 weeks, and I would like the Bill to be amended so that employees are given protection for an indefinite period when they go on strike. They should also have the right to take action if an employer takes action against them, unless the employer can prove that the detriment to, or the sacking of, a member of staff is not related to the industrial action.
	Even though people are protected for 12 weeks and action can be taken if they are sacked or suffer detriment, the Bill also fails to amend current law under which there is no effective way for them to ensure that they are reinstated. Their trade union may introduce a reinstatement order on their behalf following action by their employer, but such orders are made in only 0.2 per cent. of the cases that are brought, and few are implemented. I would therefore like the Bill to be amended to make effective the protection that people have when they take industrial action.
	The Bill also relates to agencies. We successfully introduced legislation to prevent agencies from being used to bring in workers to break strikes, but a loophole continues to exist, and agencies are still used to bring in strike-breaking workers. Indeed, in the Gate Gourmet case, the employer prepared well in advance by recruiting agency workers. I would like us to use a provision from the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill to amend this Bill by placing a duty on the employer to inform the agency when a dispute takes place. At the moment, agencies often argue that they are unaware of such disputes.
	Unfortunately, the Bill also fails to consider ballot arrangements. The balloting process that trade unions currently have to undertake is complex and in many ways invites litigation and injunctions from employers. The Government need to examine a simplified notice system, which would benefit all sides. The employer should be given notice of future industrial action, but the amount of information required should be significantly reduced. For example, we have seen a number of disputes in which injunctions have been taken out against individual trade unions for not giving full information regarding the number, names and addresses of employees or the places where they work. Such requirements no longer reflect the modern workplace, where employees are moved from time to time, making it difficult to keep track of them, particularly when there is an element of outsourcing and contracts have been delegated to individual companies. I would like the Government to reconsider the issue, because it is in everyone's interests that we introduce a simplified procedure for giving notice to the employer, which requires less information about the number of employees who will participate in the dispute. In that way, we would overcome the unnecessary difficulties and, often, conflicts that embitter disputes as a result of the notice requirements in existing legislation.
	We recently had an extensive debate in Westminster Hall on the minimum wage at which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was present. We hoped that the Bill would address a range of the issues that were raised, and although I welcome the fact that it addresses some of them, there are many outstanding ones. I still have a number of concerns—other hon. Members mentioned them during that Westminster Hall debate—including the Government's failure to reconsider the youth rate of the minimum wage. It is perplexing for many of us that the youth rate discriminates against younger workers. There are currently three national minimum wage rates based on age; workers between the ages of 16 and 17 receive £3.40 an hour, workers between the ages of 18 and 21 get £4.60 and workers aged over 22 get £5.52 an hour. What that means for the 16 to 17-year-olds is an annual wage of £6,630; and for the 18 to 21-year-olds, it is £8,970. I believe that those are poverty wages, and I find it almost impossible to understand how anyone, particularly an 18 to 20-year-old, could survive on a wage of £8,970 a year. Even for the over-22s, the annual minimum wage is only £10,764. These are poverty pay rates.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) laid early-day motion 329 before the House on the issue of the national minimum wage for young workers, and it was signed by more than 100 Labour Members. It called on the Government
	"to take steps to remove the age discrimination in the national minimum wage and establish one rate for all workers irrespective of age."
	I regret that that principle has not been embodied in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) referred to seafarers—again, in the recent Westminster Hall debate, we also asked that the Bill consider their position. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran will also dwell on that subject. Speaking as someone who has steered debates on seafarers through the House for the past five years or longer, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed that the Bill does not even look at the current problem. I have discussed the issue with the Clerks, however, and found out that it will be in order to amend the Bill to deal with the matter later.
	Some Members will know the background to that debate because they have participated in it with me over the years. For a number of years, the Race Relations Act 1976 exempted shipping, so shipowners were able to discriminate in the payment of their workers on the basis of race. The European Union asked the Government to look again at the matter and there was a long campaign, organised by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, in response to which the Government committed themselves to review the issue of discrimination on racial grounds, which meant that two seafarers doing exactly the same job on a British flagship were being paid differential rates based on their race. Most of us found that morally abhorrent, as it was dramatically perpetuating the exploitation of workers on low rates of pay.
	We campaigned and the Government responded, telling us that they would reform the law, but the reform that they introduced was unacceptable—the Government amended the legislation so that it could no longer discriminate on grounds of race, but discrimination on grounds of nationality continued. Most of us find that distinction almost impossible to fathom. We thought we had gained at least one concession when a former Minister gave a commitment to the Regulatory Reform Committee that all workers on UK flagships and ships working in British waters would be paid the minimum wage. I felt that that was a breakthrough, a concession and a victory that had resulted from our long-standing campaign.
	What we did not know then was that British waters would be defined not as territorial waters, as is generally accepted, but as Britain's internal waters. As a result, large numbers of workers—even on ferries, which we would usually consider to be within British waters—are not being paid the minimum wage, as employers continue to discriminate on the basis of nationality. I hope that in later stages of our consideration, we will be able to amend the Bill in order to secure fairness and equity for all workers, who should get the rate for the job, based on the nature of the job itself, not on their country of origin.
	In his introduction, the Minister spoke about the enforcement of the minimum wage. Many of us welcomed the statements made some time ago by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the Prime Minister, about the allocation of additional funding of £3 million for the purpose of enforcement, but as we said in the Westminster Hall debate, it does not look as though much of that money has actually filtered through to the appointment of staff. I would welcome the Minister's pledge to reconsider that matter and the powers given to individual officers working for the enforcement team.
	Third-party actions also warrant further examination. At present, enforcement takes place when individuals demonstrate that they are being paid less than the minimum wage. In some circumstances that requires an act of courage, especially when exploitative employers seek to intimidate their work forces. Perhaps the Minister will consider tabling an amendment allowing third-party actions. That would enable trade unions and other organisations to represent individuals or groups of workers and bring cases relating to failure to pay the minimum wage, so that the system would no longer need to rely on individuals who can so easily be victimised and intimidated.
	The Minister mentioned voluntary workers and cadet force adult volunteers, but I believe that the Bill may allow us to look beyond those groups. We have received representations from the National Union of Journalists and the Performers Alliance, which includes Equity, the Musicians' Union and the Writers' Guild of Great Britain. According to the NUJ, many people, mostly in newspapers but across the media, are required to work voluntarily not just for a few hours a week or a few weeks but, in some cases, for between six and 12 months in order to get on to the ladder even to be considered for a permanent position. As a result, they fall outside any legislation that would protect them from exploitation and ensure that they were paid the minimum wage at some stage in their careers. I hope that the Minister will examine the issue of volunteers in those sectors and propose amendments, because we may not have another opportunity to tackle it for some time.
	The Performers Alliance unions also raised the issue of agency fees and their effect on the minimum wage. We know that the Government have helped greatly through their moves to protect workers from an agency which, at one point, was charging high fees and deducting them from wages, with the result that many workers' pay fell below the level of the minimum wage. However, there is still a loophole. Some agents have reconstructed themselves as publishers, so that workers can be charged a publication fee simply to be listed in a directory. They are being exploited by having to pay a fee upfront, which is deducted from their pay so that, again, it falls below the minimum wage. Perhaps that too could be amended in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who is no longer present, mentioned tips. We have been promised movement on that for a long time. A private Member's Bill was drafted in the hope that the Government could incorporate its provisions in future legislation. I think the time has come to give full protection to workers who depend on gratuities, so that those amounts are not deducted from their minimum wage. At present there are a number of ways in which employers can avoid the current legislation, with the result that workers do not receive the full reward for their good service. That too was raised in the Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, and again we hope that the Minister will be able to incorporate provisions from the private Member's Bill in this legislation.
	I hope that another issue raised by Members will be incorporated. The Bill provides powers of enforcement in regard to non-payment of the minimum wage, but we believe that the provision for the exchange of information between agencies should include the opportunity to deal with non-payment of holiday money, and with other payments not made by employers. The Bill should contain a right of protection, so that those officers who deal with the enforcement of the minimum wage can also deal with the non-payment of holiday pay and other payments that employees should have received but the employer has avoided paying.
	I also hope the Minister will consider the representations we have received from a number of unions—I am thinking in particular of the civil service union, the Public and Commercial Services Union—on workplace environmental representatives. We were hoping that the role that such representatives play in their companies and their work sectors would be recognised in this Bill. Environmental representatives are like health and safety representatives in that they want to participate in the development of the policy of their company—or agency, or Government Department—with regard to improving the environmental standards of their workplace. At present, they undertake that role while some employers—including Government Departments—recognise them and some do not. They play a vital role in identifying areas where the environmental standards and performance of their employers can be improved, but they gain no statutory recognition and as a result no facilities in assisting them other than those that have been acquired voluntarily by representations to their employers. I would like the Government to look at the formal recognition of workplace environmental representatives, particularly on the day when we have received an Environmental Audit Committee report on the lack of progress, to put it diplomatically, especially of Government Departments in achieving the Government's own environmental targets. Finally, let me turn to the part of the Bill that deals with the ASLEF judgment. A range of problems have been identified in the concessions the Government have so far made in the other place. I believe they will impede the implementation of the spirit of the Government proposals, particularly with regard to the detail of what is required of a union in identifying what political party the member they are dealing with belongs to and how that can change over time. Other fairly onerous requirements will undermine the implementation of the European Court of Justice's decision on the matter. We will look at amendments as this Bill proceeds through Committee and on Report, but I think there is agreement in every part of the House that it is most important that we ensure that trade unions have the freedom not to have to accept as members those who hold offensive views and act offensively.
	That leads me on to another issue to do with our public services, which I think may be addressed in this part of the proposed legislation. We already have rules and regulations that prevent British National party members from serving in the police and prison services, but we do not have those rules for BNP members who work in other sections and Government Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, where they are meant to be serving a multicultural community. I would like the Government to look at from what other areas of service beyond the police and the Prison Service we should bar the employment of BNP members or bar their continued membership of the BNP, because I believe that holding those views and being a member of that party infects their role in serving a multicultural community. We should do everything we can and employ the full legislative force to prevent BNP members from operating in those sectors and thereby undermining the ethos of fair and equal service to the public.
	I hope to work through those issues during the Bill's progress because, by doing so, I believe we have the opportunity to implement employment legislation that addresses some of the key issues that face many of our work force today.
	Mention has been made of the Warwick agreement and the discussions taking place at present about Warwick mark 2. On that, I wish to repeat my disappointment that we have not had the opportunity within this Employment Bill to assert in law, as is the case in the rest of Europe, the basic human right of someone to withdraw their labour, including by secondary action—sympathetic action—in solidarity with other workers. Until we can secure that right once again, people will continue to be exploited; there will be bad employers who seek to undermine their wages and conditions, and the balance between employer and employee will still be out of kilter. I urge the Government to look again at this Bill to see whether we can include once again in British law this protection and the basic human right to withdraw one's labour.

Si�n Simon: I might have missed it, so could the hon. Lady say a bit about what her Front-Bench team recommend the Government should be doing? She has identified what she sees as an omission, but I would be grateful if she would let us know how she would like to see the gap filled.

Oliver Heald: I first wish to make a general point that is relatively important in the context of clause 4. When I first started appearing before industrial tribunals in 1976 I did so for free, as a trainee lawyer with the Free Representation Unit. In those days, tribunals were very informal, the rules of procedure were limited and the chairman would often be able to decide what sort of evidence he wanted to hear and how. The person representing the employee was often a trade union representative or someone freelike meand the employer would simply send along the personnel director. In that atmosphere, the people thereincluding the members of the tribunalunderstood the workplace and the industrial scene. The three who made up the panelthe employer's representative, the employee's representative and the lawyer who acted as chairmanwere an integral part of that atmosphere, which was that of an industrial jury that decided industrial concerns on behalf of people who all understood the workplace.
	The atmosphere has changed a lot over the years and industrial tribunalsnow employment tribunalshave become much more formal places with more legalism. It was inevitable that that would happen. That area of law was very exciting in the 1970s, because it was constantly changing as new Governments came and went. The  Industrial Relations Law Reports came out every week, so more law was reported in that area than in almost any other. Gradually, the effect of all the new cases and the need for precision ensured the change to a more legalistic environment.
	However, the tripartite decision making has remained throughout, with an employer's representative, an employee's representative and a chairman. That is very important for cases that address issues such as the terms and conditions of employment or questions of unfair dismissal. Once the employer has shown the reason for dismissal, it is up to the industrial jury to decide whether the decision to dismiss was reasonable. The issue of reasonableness in that forum is well decided by a tribunal made up of representatives who understand the workplace. Anything that erodes that approach would be a bad thing.
	So when clause 4 of the Bill talks of fast-track decision making without a hearing, alarm bells begin to ring. Will that mean that the chairman decides cases on his own? Last year, we had a consultation document, Transforming tribunals, from the Ministry of Justice, and chapter 9 included suggestions that employment tribunals had scope for more decision making by chairmen alone, as it would not always be necessary to involve the lay members.
	The issue was taken up in the other place by Lord Wedderburn who pressed the Minister on it. I wish to do the same and press the Minister to confirm that the Government have no intention of cutting back on tripartite decision making by the tribunal on important issues such as reasonableness of dismissal and terms and conditions of employment. The lay members add something to the decision making on those issues and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
	Clauses 1 to 3 abolish the 2004 regulations, encourage more voluntary conciliation and support ACAS with extra funding. I shall give some of the history behind the boom in cases that led to the Employment Act 2002. In the early days of the industrial tribunal, it had a much more limited jurisdiction with far fewer cases. Even in 1998, there were only about 29,000 cases a year. By 2000, that had grown to 130,000 cases a year, and something needed to be done to encourage employers and employees to try to solve their problems without necessarily ending up at an employment tribunal.
	One of the great motors for an increase in the number of cases was the Polkey  v. A. E. Dayton Services Ltd decision in 1987, because it said that if there was any significant procedural irregularity in the way in which a case was dealt with by the employer, there was an entitlement to a finding of unfair dismissal. If it was only a technical matter, however, the tribunal could decide that, despite the procedural irregularity and the consequent unfair dismissal, the compensation could be set at nothing or very low.
	The decision meant that cases that would previously have been rejected on their merits were pursued on procedural grounds. The Conservative Government looked at the issue in the mid-1990s and published a Green Paper in 1994 that considered the options for dealing with disputes. It had two main suggestions. First, it suggested that ACAS should have a conciliation scheme and a system of voluntary referrals to arbitration. Secondly, if employees had not followed the internal grievance procedure, or employers had not followed their internal procedures, they should not have the right to go to a tribunal. In other words, it was vital to both employees' and employers' defences to have pursued internal remedies first.
	In response it was argued that that approach would cause complexity and delay in many cases. After much thought, the then Minister, Ian Lang, decided not to require the internal procedures to be completed. When the Labour Government came in, they looked at the consultation document and the responses and made the same decision. I cannot remember who the Minister was, but in 1997 the incoming Government decided against that change.
	It was therefore a surprisenot to mention a mistakewhen the Government, in introducing the 2002 Act, decided to go ahead and insist that internal procedures should be completed to provide grounds for a claim or a defence to a claim. Many warned at the time that that would lead to complexity and delay. Instead of all the evidence being heard in one go by a tribunal, a two-part procedure was necessary. The first part of the process was deciding whether a case was procedurally acceptable because the internal procedures had been completed by the employer or employee. Then another hearing was needed to decide whether the dismissal was unfair or not.
	The effect of that was predictable, and so it came to pass. From quite early onwithin a year of the change's implementationorganisations such as the CBI and some unions were saying that it was a good idea in policy terms, but that the way in which it had been implemented was heavy handed, bureaucratic, prescriptive, over-regulatory and did not work. The number of cases that were delayed went up and became a big problem.
	I remember that when I was the Front-Bench spokesman for legal issues, the chairmen of tribunals would come to me and say, Look, you have to do something about these 2004 regulations because they are snarling up the whole system. Although they were a good idea in principle, in practice they are turning out to be a nightmare. I asked a number of parliamentary questions on the issuein fact, last summer, after the Gibbons report came out, I reached a crescendo with about 20 questions, all asking whether the Government would do something about the situation.
	Now that I have given that background, I want to tell the House that I welcome clauses 1 to 3, which get rid of the idea that there must be a first hearing about the procedural aspects before one can get down to the real thingin other words, that it has to be proved that the procedures have been followed internally before a claim can be mounted. As far as the other side of the coin is concerned, though, the idea of having conciliation and some ability to talk and to try to reach a decision on the claim between employer and employee before the matter gets out of the workplace is a good idea.
	I welcome the fact that ACAS is getting extra funds, but does the Minister think that there is room for mediators and others to be involved rather than just ACAS. What is the Government's position on alternative dispute resolution in that area? Is it that it should just be a matter for ACAS and that the 37 million will do it, or are the Government saying that they would be prepared to have independent mediators and others involved to try to tackle some of the cases at an earlier stage?
	My overall position is that I give a warm welcome to the first few clauses of the Bill, which are long overdue. I have no doubt that the mistake was made with the best of intentions but I am pleased that it is being remedied, and I know that everybody in the employment tribunals will heave a sigh of relief.

Katy Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	As I was saying, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was, of course, a controversial and contested piece of legislation. It is one of the flagship polices introduced by Labour since 1997. I welcome the provisions that will strengthen the enforcement of the regulations.
	The truth, however, is that other than the drip, drip of employment legislation that we have heard about, Britain has the most restrictive labour and employment laws in Europe. Trade unions in Britain have the fewest rights of those in any country in Europe. As has been said, our right to be members of trade unions and to take part in trade union activity dates from less than 100 years ago, when the Labour party was created. One of the first steps that the initial 29 Labour MPs took was to drive through a private Member's Bill to overturn the House of Lords decision on Taff Vale. We have already heard references to Lord Wedderburn and other leading employment experts, who have regularly articulated that our rights in labour law now are worse than they were 100 years ago. We should not be proud of that.
	Of course, new laws are not the only way of dealing with exploitation in the workplace. If we look at history and at the situation now, we see that one of the most effective ways of fighting a cause in the workplace is to join a trade union. We know that trade union members earn significantly more than non-trade union members. They have better pay, better pensions and better health and safety in the workplace.
	It is appropriate that those of us in this place should make it very clear that, as a public policy matter, we believe that trade unions are a force for good in society. One reason for that is that we have to recognise the huge imbalance of power in society. In particular, we must recognise the huge imbalance of power in the workplace between the employer and employee. I welcome the work that has led more than 100 MPs to sign early-day motion 1604, which calls for the Bill to be amended to include aspects of the Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill. We have heard already from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about that Bill.
	I welcome the clause that lifts restrictions on trade unions and the amendment of the rules on the exclusion or expulsion of individuals on the grounds of membership of a political party. The clause is in the Bill because of active attempts by fascists in Britain to infiltrate trade unions, when, of course, fascist ideology runs counter to the beliefs of trade unions. If we consider the activities of fascists who have gained power throughout the world, we see that trade unionists are one of the first groups that they target, victimise, exploit, jail and kill. Trade unions are saying that they do not feel that it is reasonable that they should be forced to take people who are members of fascist parties into their membership, because they know that the only reason those organisations target them is to undermine their core values and beliefs.
	We need to look more broadly at trade unions and their rule books. Britain has the most restrictive labour laws in Europe, which means that we have the most rules that govern how trade unions behave. The Conservatives, who were in power for 18 years, introduced most the legislation that led to the regulation of trade unions. It is interesting to hear Conservative Members talk about burdens on business, because they put excessive burdens on trade unions. Trade unionists tell us that the rules under which they are required to operate are not just excessively bureaucratic and expensive, but make it practically impossible for them to carry out their activities lawfullythe activities their members ask them to carry out. The Trade Union Rights and Freedoms Bill proposed simplification of the law on trade unions, because it is not appropriate that the state should lay down in such detail the requirements to be followed every time a trade union takes a ballot on industrial action.
	Current provisions make it impossible, in effect, for legal industrial action to take place. However, most cases are not examined in detail; evidence is not examined in detail by a body such as a court or tribunal. Those who have had to take part in such processes would not dispute the fact that existing legislation is excessively prohibitive.

Katy Clark: I do not accept what my hon. Friend says. Such situations are clearly difficult to regulate, but the role of Government is to grapple with them and come up with solutions. We are talking about ferry routes that serve communities, whether the Scottish islands, Hull or Rotterdam. They are not operated by fly by night employers or industries; they provide services daily.

Angus MacNeil: I should like to emphasise that one of the reasons many people give tips is that they are aware of exactly the point the hon. Lady makes and they try to help, so it is all the more galling when they realise that their tips are used to make up the wages.

Rob Marris: My hon. Friend will have considerable experience of this matter as a former trade union solicitor. Would she care to say anything about the Bill's initial clauses on the statutory dispute resolution procedure, which was contained in the Employment Act 2002. I served on the Standing Committee that considered that Bill, and several Members, including me, pointed out to the then Minister that that procedure would be unworkable. Sadly, that has proved to be so. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will share with the House her experiences in that regard.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) made mention of 1997 and the body of law that the Government introduced to affect employment relations and so on subsequently. Indeed, I am grateful, too, to the Government, because one of their manifesto commitments during the 1997 election was to afford protection to the whistleblower.
	The concept of the whistleblower owes much, of course, to Members of the previous Conservative-dominated Parliament, but I am mindful that my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), came up with an idea that he gave to those who are involved in Public Concern at Work, and he asked them to make proposals for legislation. Those proposals were taken up by the then Opposition, and the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) introduced a private Member's Bill, which had the support of a remarkable man who was a shadow employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who helped to push very hard for the proposal. It also had all-party support, including a lot of support from Conservative Back Benchers. I learned then and subsequently that the power of the Administration, often unbeknown to Ministers, is quite something. I commend the Government's support in their manifesto for the concept of whistleblowing.
	I came what seemed like 140th in the private Member's Bill ballot, but the Government very generously provided all the access and support needed to try to progress the matter. Indeed, the Bill passed through this House, and I owe something to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the then shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for not objecting to it. I also owe a lot of gratitude to a past leader of my party, who is now showing great instincts on social justice, for supporting the Bill from the beginning. The Bill was taken through the House of Lords by another distinguished man, Lord Borrie, who worked hard with Public Concern at Work and all the people there who had made effort, raised money and tried to advance the cause.
	The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 was intended to promote responsible whistleblowing. Although it arose from a private Member's Bill, it received strong support from the Government, especially from the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield. It was backed by business, unions and regulators.
	Although PIDA forms part of employment legislation, the policy behind it closely follows the jurisprudence developed by the courts over the past two centuries on public interest disclosure. Accordingly, the Act provides strong protection to workers who raise concerns about wrongdoing that threatens the public interest. It provides that protection most readily when the concern is raised with the employer in good faith. It also protects disclosures made to prescribed regulatory bodies, whether or not they have been raised internally, when the concern has a substantial basis. It also protects wider disclosures, including to the police, Members of Parliament and the media, when the disclosure is reasonable and justified. Accordingly, the legislation was designed to encourage employees to raise, and employers to address, serious concerns about crime, fraud, danger, abuse and other harm to the public interest.
	At the time when the Act was passed, we the promotersand, I think, most peopleunderstood that information about claims made under the Act would be on the public record. That was important because it would help to promote openness, to discourage specious claims and to encourage an employer to deal properly with any serious concern that was raised with it. Such openness was also necessary to monitor how PIDA was operating.
	After PIDA's commencement, the employment tribunals service and the Department of Trade and Industry denied the charity Public Concern at Work all information about claims brought under the Act. With reluctance, the matter was put before the High Court, which found in favour of the charity in April 2000. Mr. Justice Jackson concluded:
	It is sometimes embarrassing for a party to employment tribunal proceedings to have certain details of his claim made public. On the other hand, claimants in the court suffer similar embarrassment. That is part of the price which all citizens pay in order to have the benefit of an open system of justice...It has always been the policy of the law that, so far as possible, litigation should be conducted under the public gaze and under the critical scrutiny of all who wish to report legal proceedings...The principle of open justice applies to employment tribunals with just as much force as it applies to court proceedings.
	While the then DTI claimed that it would appeal the decision, it introduced, without consultation or announcement, temporary regulations to reverse the High Court ruling. It did so on the day before a summer recess, so I advise all Members in the Chamber to be very interested about what is listed on the Order Paper in the two days before the recess. Statutory instruments that come into effect within 45 or 60 days that are put down at that time may receive no parliamentary scrutiny. Although, at the time, we appealed to try to block those regulations, and the Government promised that they would be debated, they came into effect before we could debate them.
	Although the DTI substantially agreed to consult on whether claims under PIDA should be treated differently from those under other employment laws, the promised consultation did not take place. As part of the dispute resolution regime that is being dismantled in the Bill, regulations were extended to remove all information from the public record about employment tribunals claims.
	The charity Public Concern at Work forwarded a complaint through me to the parliamentary ombudsman, which finally reported in 2005. The report is perhaps the most damning that I have ever read about the conduct of officials in a Department of State. It is truly shaming. It was not published in the usual way, whereby every Member gets a copy, but put on Public Concern at Work's website.
	The ombudsman criticised the DTI's handling of the matter because it was never honest with the High Court or the public about why it objected to information about tribunal claims being publicly available; because it launched a costly appeal that it had no intention of pursuing so that it could overturn the High Court decision in secret through regulations; because it repeatedly misled Public Concern at Work to try to head off all public criticism; because it failed to consider the public interest or to realise that whistleblowing claims
	might involve matters of very great public interest;
	because it issued a one-sided and unfair consultation in breach of Government rules, ignoring powerful arguments for openness; and because it blocked parliamentary scrutiny by giving assurances that it failed to keep. I cannot think of anything more damning that has been said in an ombudsman's report about the conduct of a Department. As a result of it, the DTI agreed to apologise and to pay 130,000 compensation to Public Concern at Work for misleading it and wasting its time.
	One must ask what the damage to the public interest is. Employment tribunals statistics record that, in 2005-06, some 1,015 claims under PIDA were disposed of. Some 283 of those were disposed of after a hearing, and so, under the rules, information about those cases is on record. However, the rules mean that all information about the other 730 claims72 per cent. of all whistleblowing claimsremain shrouded in secrecy.
	Other than the numerical statistics, which can be obtained only by making a specific request under freedom of information legislation, there is nothing on public record about more than 70 per cent. of whistleblowing claims. There is no information about the nature of the concern, be it a crime, danger, abuse or other wrongdoing. There is no information about who was at risk, be they consumers, passengers, patients, taxpayers, shareholders or fellow workers. There is no information about whom the concern was raised with, be that a manager, a compliance officer, the chief executive officer, the audit committee, a regulator or someone else. There is no information about the employer's response to the concern, whether it was ignored, investigated or hushed up, and whether it was claimed that it was misconceived, well founded or put right. There is also no information about the alleged reprisal, whether it was carried out by managers or colleagues, and whether it was dismissal or victimisation.
	That is the case even though the claims are brought in a public forum, at public expense, and under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Other than the two parties, no one, not even a Minister, is able lawfully to find out from the employment tribunals records whether, for example, a whistleblowing claim has been brought in relation to problems of clostridium difficile or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a hospital, even though that issue has fuelled public and ministerial anxiety about the NHS and anxiety within it. Additionally, one cannot find out whether a claim relates to a pre-existing problem with the fuel system of the Nimrod aircraft that crashed in Afghanistan with the tragic loss of 14 servicemen.
	Such secrecy undermines the public interest and PIDA in two essential ways. It enables and encourages unscrupulous employers to buy off genuine whistleblowers, rather than address the underlying malpractice. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 expressly encourages employees to raise whistleblowing concerns internally, so that responsible employers can deal with them properly and without delay, so it is not an imaginary problem. Contrary to Parliament's intention when it passed the Act, the current rules have created a scheme under which crime, company fraud, public dangers and tax evasion can be readily hushed up, contrary to the public interest.
	That secrecy damages responsible business, as it enables and encourages unscrupulous employees to bring spurious claims. A report in the  Financial Times on 18 September 2007 quoted the City firm, Nomura, which warned:
	The whistleblowing legislation was designed to protect employees who, in good faith, raise legitimate concerns of wrongdoing in the workplace. Its growing use by white men as a litigation tactic when in dispute with the City employers, suggests the legislation is being abused.
	The secrecy that now exists means that it is not possible to assess whether that claim is well founded. That is the substance of the anxiety that caused the right hon. Member for MakerfieldI see that he is presentto start on a course of action to try to bring about structural change in respect of whistleblowers.
	I know that the Department has again been in consultation with Public Concern at Work. All I ask is that the Department gives serious consideration to any amendments tabled to do with the publication of whistleblowing cases. Part of the difficulty is that there have been so many changes of junior Ministers in the Department that the collective memory of the Government or Executive, as opposed to the Administration, is somehow lost. Many undertakings have been given, and it has been said that there was no objection in principle. The Minister for Energy should read the ombudsman's report, and people in the Department should re-read it, or read it, if they have not yet had the opportunity to do so. The problems can, and should, be corrected, and the Bill is the vehicle with which to do so.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is just as well that I did not give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Michael Jabez Foster), as I would have been even further out of order.
	We have had a good-tempered debate today up to now and we have heard 10 good speeches from both sides of the House. I have quite a lot to say about them and I do not want to detain the House for too long, so I am going to limit the interventions I take. When I have had an opportunity to get properly into my speech, I will give way to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye.
	The Bill started its life in the House of Lords as long ago as 7 January 2008. It is curious, then, to consider why it has taken so long to get here. It comprises 22 clauses and is divided into four sections. Clauses 1 to 7 deal with dispute resolution: clause 4 deals particularly with the determination of proceedings without a hearing; clause 5 with the circumstances in which ACAS is obliged to offer conciliation services; and clause 6 repeals section 18 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Clauses 8 to 14 deal with the national minimum wage: clause 13 excludes cadet force adult volunteers from qualifying for the national minimum wage. Clauses 15 to 17 deal with employment agencies and clause 18 relates to trade unions. I intend to say something about all of those provisions.
	We have heard excellent speeches, not least on the Opposition side from my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries). I was particularly impressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, as what he said, speaking without notes on the basis of his huge experience in employment tribunals, was enormously beneficial to the House. He proved that the Government's rushed legislation of 2002, introduced by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) on the basis of his three-step and increasingly legalistic approach, was subsequently shown by the trade unions and others to be not the best way of proceeding with industrial tribunals. The Bill is welcome in that it starts to put right some of what the Government got wrong in 2002. My hon. Friend, along with the hon. Member for Blaydon and others on the left of the Labour party, demonstrated that the experience of members of employment tribunals counted for a great deal. It is a pity that the Government got this wrong in 2002; perhaps the Bill will begin to restore some of what was lost then.
	I worry about the timetable. As the Minister made clear, consultation on the code will not finish until 24 July, yet under the timetable we are asked to accept later this evening, all stages of the Bill must be concluded by 23 October. For most of that time, the House will be in recess, so it will be difficult for us to get together to discuss what is in the Bill. The timetable makes it very difficult for the House to consider the code, which is one of the key aspects of the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire alluded to the British Chambers of Commerce, which has conducted many surveys of its members who own small businesses. It calculates that the regulations introduced by the Government since they came to power 1997-98 amount to some 65 billion-worth of costs. She also quoted from the Federation of Small Businesses, which estimated that about 68 per cent. of its members do not employ anybody because they are fearful of employment legislationin other words, they are one-man businesses. The Government should note that most of the employers in the small business sector have to deal with the welter of employment legislation on their own because they cannot afford to employ people to do it for them.
	I will move on to deal with disputes resolution and hearings, along with the three-step approach and Government studies. If the Bill can simplify the way we deal with disputes, and particularly how clause 7 deals with the enforcement of the award of compensation, that will be welcome. We have had a good amount of discussion this evening about how best to amend clause 7 to ensure that awards by tribunals can be enforced a little more quickly.
	Clauses 8 to 13 on the national minimum wage have been extensively debated. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne bravely said that if he had been a Member when the national minimum wage legislation had been debated and voted on, he would notwith the experience that he has now gainedhave voted for it. That is probably true for a large number of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) asked how he could have debated the national minimum wage in Committee from 4.30 in the afternoon to 1 am the next day and still have been in the same parliamentary day. The answer is, of course, that we remain in the same day until the House adjourns. He may be right that that was one of the longest-ever Committee hearings on the legislation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: With great respectand I do have great respect for the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor)I do not regard 65 billion as a small sum. I consider it incumbent on any Government to legislate for the minimum amount necessary to ensure that businesses operate properly and employers and employees are treated fairly, and in particular to ensure that employees do not suffer discrimination in the workplace.

John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman depicted a number of us as being left-wing or old Labour, when we were simply referring to the installation in British law of International Labour Organisation conventions concerning the right to withdraw one's labour. Will he comment on the statements of his colleague the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), about the need to restrict the right to strike in certain public services? How are the Opposition developing that policy?

Malcolm Wicks: I understand that. Indeed, in my own constituency I have had experience of one or two such situations. I understand what my hon. Friend and other colleagues are saying. That is why we are not complacent. We are maintaining the dialogue and, if necessary, we will take further action.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) raised a point, which was touched on by one or two other colleagues, about mariners. That is a complex matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said. Under current legislation, all resident and non-resident seafarers are entitled to the minimum wage while they are in the UK's internal waters. A seafarer on a UK-registered ship anywhere in the world is entitled to the national minimum wage unless his employment is wholly outside the UK or he is not ordinarily resident in the UK.
	International maritime law, and specifically the right of innocent passage, means that the UK is unable to apply legislation to ships sailing under the flag of another country. That is reciprocal. For example, British ships enjoy that right in the Gulf and when passing close to Saudi Arabia. If the Government were to apply further legislation just to UK flagships they would run the risk of those ships flagging out and diminishing the number of UK ships sailing under the UK flag, something that the Government are committed to preventing. If vessels choose to flag out, not only will the number of UK flagships diminish but the seafarers aboard will miss out on the other entitlements that sailing under the UK flag ensures.
	Understandably, the issue of tips and how they relate to the minimum wage was raised by a number of colleagues. Regarding tipping, I strongly agree with the view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform that that is an important issue. I want to assure hon. Members that we are looking carefully at finding a solution. I, like so many others who have spoken, feel that when a tip is given to a waiter in a restaurant or catering establishment, that tip should go to the waiter or waitress and not to the boss or the national company involved.